Curiouser and curiouser:

The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.

Where do they come up with this stuff? Oh, here:

The same point appeared Friday on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, where Robert L. Pollock, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, cited the list of law firms and quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.”

The New York Times was not amused, calling the administration's latest attack "contemptable."

Stimson went on:

He said, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”

This is why were fighting the "decisive ideological struggle of our time?" Because those dasterdly terrorists hit the corporate bottom line?

It's all starting to make sense now.

Labels: Bush Administration, Terrorism

It's kind of heartwarming to read about the the Afshari's faith in America after a court reversed their dismissal by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for allegedly failing some kind of background check.

Shahla Afshari said the settlement has helped restore her faith in America.

“I believe that people from the Middle East, there are so many things they go through. Most of the time they are scared and don’t say anything,” she said.

“For those people, I have a message. You have to have faith in God. If you haven’t done anything, you have to fight for your integrity. You have to fight for your rights.”

Maybe. But I'm still having trouble getting past the fact that this happened in the first place, particularly now that more information has been released, and why it went on for so long after it was obvious to everyone that the government had screwed up -- big time.

The Afsharis’ lawsuit revealed that:

• The Federal Bureau of Investigations had decided the Afsharis were not a threat long before they were fired. A local FBI agent already had conducted a routine check and closed their file.
• A government official was forced to recant her sworn testimony about the couple. At first, she said she recommended to Howard that they be fired. Later, she said that her sworn testimony was “not consistent” with her current "recollection of matters.”
• The government officials in Atlanta who recommended their firing never interviewed their neighbors, co-workers or supervisors in Morgantown. They never talked to the local FBI agent, either.

For two years, the federal government tried to hide behind national security concerns, Karlin said. But earlier this year, a federal judge forced them to hand over documents about the firing, which helped lead to a settlement.

NIOSH Director John Howard says the firing was a mistake, although it was done "in good faith" at the time. Huh? Good faith for whom?

I know John Howard. He's a good, decent person. So if someone like him can get swept up in anti-immigrant (particularly anti-middle eastern) fever, what does that say about this country's defenses against flagrant and unfounded violations of people's rights -- even if they don't happend to be American citizens yet?

Related Articles

• Iranian Couple, Fired By NIOSH, Win Lawsuit, December 19, 2006
• Fighting For Freedom: Iranian Couple Still Trying To Get Their Jobs Back At NIOSH, December 10, 2006
• Terrorists in NIOSH? Someone Seems to Think So, December 13, 2004
  
  

Labels: John Howard, NIOSH, Terrorism

(Written from an undisclosed location)

I work just a couple of blocks from the main World Bank and IMF buildings, and from my undisclosed office, I stare across K St. into the windows of another undisclosed World Bank building, so everyone (especially my mother) is asking how I’m coping with the latest RidgeAlerts.

Here are my responses:

GIVE ME A F**KING BREAK!

The intelligence shows that al Qaeda has been methodically casing those buildings, and perhaps others, since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and also since then, according to one senior U.S. intelligence official who briefed reporters on the alleged plot. Authorities said they do not know when the operatives were planning to carry out any of the bombings.

OK, so it’s creepy that the bad guys are staking us out. But according to Ridge, this thing could happen tomorrow, yesterday, it could happen next week, last week, next year, or last year. There’s no time frame. So what’s the rationale for suddenly declaring Code Orange now, unless it’s...

Playing Politics With Terror Alerts

This, from Atrios.

Tom Ridge yesterday:

But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.

So what is one to think? Luckily, Tom Burka came up with the...

Most Credible Theory:

Sinking Bush Poll Numbers Increase Likelihood of Terrorist Attack, Says Ridge.
Connection Unfathomable, Say Rove, Cheney

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge announced today that analysts had concluded that the likelihood of a terrorist strike in America increases whenever the President's popularity rating declines.

"There's a distinct correlation between the President's popularity ratings and increased terrorist activity," said Ridge. "Whenever President Bush's numbers go down, it's far more likely that we will be attacked by al Qaeda."

"The only thing we can advise is for U.S. citizens to like President Bush as much as possible to keep us all safe," Ridge concluded.

Standing in front of a wall of high-tech flat screen monitors, Ridge addressed reporters in the new Department of Homeland Security Security Operations Center.
"I can't for the political life of me say why this is happening," said Ridge. "I'm utterly stumped."

Ridge denied that Gilligan's Island was showing on one of the many screens behind him. "Oh, no," he said. "That's an uncharted desert isle."

And sure enough, right on cue:

Kerry Leads Bush in Post-Convention Poll
Washington Post-ABC News Poll Shows Voters Favor Kerry 50-44

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 2, 2004; 5:20 PM

Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry emerged from his national convention last week with a small lead over President Bush in the race for the White House and improved his standing against the president on both the economy and on who is better qualified to serve as commander in chief, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

Labels: Terrorism

Airport Screeners Fight to Organize Union, Threaten National Security. Oh My!

This article from the Orlando Sentinel describes Airport screeners efforts to build a union and eventually get collective bargaining rights despite the Administration's insistence that unions and homeland security are incompatible.

The opening salvo was fired in January by TSA chief James Loy, when he forbade screeners access to collective bargaining. That was followed by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and its absorption of tens of thousands of civil service workers, who were offered only a one-year guarantee that their union rights would be preserved. And now the Department of Defense is asking Congress for unprecedented authority to hire, fire and promote its 746,000 civilian workers.

The administration couches everything in national security terms, saying it wants to create a nimble work force capable of responding to today's threats. But union leaders call it thinly veiled union busting.

"The part that really frustrates me is that they are lying to the public. They have all the flexibility they need under the current law," said Bobby Harnage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 600,000 government workers.

Although screeners are allowed to join AFGE, they aren't allowed to bargain. Screeners talk about how they are being mistreated and claim they are being harassed for organizing activities.

Among the problems cited in Orlando and other airports: Schedules are inconsistent from week to week, and sometimes even day to day; paychecks are lost or wrong; employees are often denied breaks whenever there is a shortage of workers; and screeners who used to work for private screening companies are given first shot at promotions.

And they say those who complain about working conditions often are harassed by supervisors -- including being given less desirable schedules or denied transfers.

"The way we are treated -- it's always negative," said Marzke, who thinks his union activism has made him a target.

Marzke was one of 13 screeners who made a trek to Washington, D.C., in March to officially join the union and take part in a news conference. Immediately afterward, he started having trouble with his pay -- including missing two consecutive paychecks.

"I could only assume it was retribution for my union activities," Marzke said.

***

Nationwide, screeners are complaining about many of the same things, though there are issues of more importance to specific locations.

At Boston, for example, union activist Dennis Cullity is worried about the lack of radiation-detection badges -- they track cumulative exposure -- for screeners who operate X-ray machines. Such badges are worn by the technicians who come in to repair the machines, he said.

"But we're with the machines eight hours a day and we don't get to wear them," Cullity said. "If they are wearing them, why aren't we?"

In Los Angeles, a hub for flights to and from Asia, screeners complain about not being allowed to wear masks to ward against the sometimes fatal respiratory disease SARS. But also, screeners want to see less chaotic scheduling.

But less chaotic scheduling would clearly threaten the security of the homeland, according to Robert Poole, director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation,* a conservative think tank.

With unions would come new workplace rules that could make it harder for managers to respond to sudden threats. The TSA likes to point to its rapid mobilization of screeners around New Year's Day, when intelligence suggested terrorists were planning to sneak shoe-bombs aboard U.S. jetliners.

"You want to have that level of flexibility. And that's going to be difficult to preserve if the union takes hold," Poole said....

Even if they can't strike, union workers could use other tactics, including sick-outs and work slowdowns, to apply pressure during contract negotiations, said Charles Slepian, an aviation security expert with the Foreseeable Risk Analysis Center.

"We can't start messing around with the aviation industry," Slepian said.

Well, all I can say is that it's a good thing there weren't any of those union members involved in 9/11 events. Imagine what a mess that would have been.

*Reason Foundation on Bush's Government Privatization Proposal: "In an exciting development for privatization advocates, the Bush Administration announced plans to privatize 850,000 government jobs, almost half of the federal work force. The decision is a powerful endorsement of Reason’s decades of privatization work....Reason Executive Director Adrian Moore and Senior Fellow Carl DeMaio provided research and strategic guidance in formulating the Agenda, and are working closely with OMB to ensure its smooth implementation."

Labels: Terrorism, Union Busting